Here is the language of Part 1 of the Bill. Sadly for km's legal world view, the words same-sex and marriage are treated as a valid legal descriptive term. Yeah for the UK.

Part 1 Marriage of same sex couples in England and WalesExtension of marriage1 Extension of marriage to same sex couples

(1) 5Marriage of same sex couples is lawful.

(2) The marriage of a same sex couple may only be solemnized in accordancewithó

(a) Part 3 of the Marriage Act 1949,

(b) Part 5 of the Marriage Act 1949,

(c) 10the Marriage (Registrar Generalís Licence) Act 1970, or

(d) an Order in Council made under Part 1 or 3 of Schedule 6.

(3) No Canon of the Church of England is contrary to section 3 of the Submissionof the Clergy Act 1533 (which provides that no Canons shall be contrary to theRoyal Prerogative or the customs, laws or statutes of this realm) by virtue of its15making provision about marriage being the union of one man with onewoman.

(4) Any duty of a member of the clergy to solemnize marriages (and anycorresponding right of persons to have their marriages solemnized bymembers of the clergy) is not extended by this Act to marriages of same sex20couples.

We know that if the Bill is passed into law thereís going to be Marriage Type A with one set of rules and Marriage Type B with another. Marriage Type A will be solemnised as ever between bride and groom and marriage Type B between persons of the same sex. There will be a right of annulment for non consummation in Marriage Type A but no such right in marriage Type B where consummation is biologically impossible.

Prohibited degrees of relationship that are necessary for Marriage Type A will be applied also to Marriage Type B where they happen to be unnecessary. That will discriminate unfairly against same sex partners outside the prohibited degrees by admitting to marriage only those who are within them.

The unequal treatment of parties to a marriage with regard to annulment for non consummation and then the exclusion of some same sex couples from the institution of marriage by reason of prohibited degrees will offend the Human Rights Act 1998 and thus require a ministerial statement before Second Reading derogating from the European Convention of Human Rights. Contrary to Cameronís pronouncements about legislating for equality he is by these proposals achieving the exact opposite although up to now he has remained ignorant of the fact.

Political parties who wish to change the law on major constitutional and social institutions without a breach of trust should do what the Tories did not do in this case which is publish their intentions in a pre-election manifesto and then, if they gain power, instigate a consultation process and public debate starting with a green paper. This is the honest and democratic tradition of the nation.

Political parties who wish to change the law on major constitutional and social institutions without a breach of trust should do what the Tories did not do in this case which is publish their intentions in a pre-election manifesto and then, if they gain power, instigate a consultation process and public debate starting with a green paper

You actually mean, what you think they should do. Glad they didn't. Congratulations to your country.

Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.

All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.